Using LGPLv3+ license for libgnutls?

Simon Josefsson simon at
Tue Sep 9 18:01:23 CEST 2008

Joe Orton <joe at> writes:

> On Tue, Sep 09, 2008 at 02:30:48PM +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
>> RMS asked if there are is reason GnuTLS should remain LGPLv2.1+ instead
>> of using LGPLv3+.
>> The reasons I'm familiar with includes lynx under GPLv2-only.  Gnucash
>> is also said to contain GPLv2-only code.
>> Are there other reasons not to use LGPLv3+?
> Here's a list of packages from Fedora Raw Hide which link against GnuTLS 
> and have license tags indicating GPLv2-only licensing:
> aria2-0.12.0-5.fc10.src.rpm - GPLv2
> climm-0.6.3-1.fc10.src.rpm - GPLv2
> cups-1.3.8-5.fc10.src.rpm - GPLv2
> ekg2-0.2-0.4.rc1.fc10.src.rpm - GPLv2
> gobby-0.4.6-1.fc10.src.rpm - GPLv2
> hardinfo- - GPLv2
> jd-2.0.1-0.2.beta080901.fc10.src.rpm - GPLv2
> snort-2.8.1-5.fc10.src.rpm - GPLv2
> sobby-0.4.4-5.fc10.src.rpm - GPLv2
> xfce4-mailwatch-plugin-1.0.1-10.fc10.src.rpm - GPLv2
> (Note that this list is not necessarily complete since it won't include 
> packages which have not yet had their License tags audited.)

Thanks for the list!

I tried to do some systematic searches, but the debian copyright
information tends to be incorrect (not mentioning versions) or difficult
to parse.

I recognize cups, snort and ekg, and they are fairly well known.


More information about the Gnutls-devel mailing list